Extended Data Fig. 10. Effects of optogenetic perturbation in frontal and parietal cortex on licking behavior.

(a) To test if frontal or parietal inactivation impairs movement planning or execution, we computed the fraction of missed trials with and without optogenetic inhibition in frontal cortex. No increase in missed trials was detected, demonstrating that the animals’ ability to respond was not impaired (n_EMX = 2009, n_PT = 1192, n_IT = 669, n_CStr = 1408 trials). (b) Same as in a) for parietal inactivation (n_EMX = 1721, n_PT = 1108, n_IT = 844, n_CStr = 1093 trials). (c) Top: Quantification of licking behavior after spouts were moved in for all correct trials in a single EMX animal (10 ms bins). Licking probability varies rhythmically at ~10 Hz as the animal licks the spout repeatedly (black line). The same pattern is observed with frontal optogenetic inactivation in different trial episodes (colored lines), demonstrating that motor generation is not generally perturbed. Bottom: While the lick pattern is largely similar with optogenetics, inactivation during the delay period (yellow line) reduces the lick probability during the first 40 ms (gray area). Frontal inactivation during the delay might thus increase animals’ reaction times. (d) Same as in (c) but for parietal inactivation. (e) Quantification of lick probability in the first 40 ms for all cell types. Frontal inactivation during the delay period reduces early lick probability in EMX, PT and IT mice but not CStr mice (n_EMX = 2009, n_PT = 1192, n_IT = 669, n_CStr = 1408 trials). (f) Same as in (e) for parietal inactivation. Only EMX inactivation during the delay caused a small reduction in first lick probability (n_EMX = 1721, n_PT = 1108, n_IT = 844, n_CStr = 1093 trials). Data are presented as mean +/− 95% confidence intervals. Stars indicate bonferroni-corrected p < 0.005, two-sided binomial test.